New York County Chief Assistant District Attorney, Daniel J. Castleman, whose office did not prosecute the case discussed, weighed in:

I agree that neither attorney has brought honor and distinction to their respective roles.

First, it is hard to credit the defense attorney’s assertion that she simply ‘forgot’ about the stipulation. After all, it’s her job to carefully scrutinize any transcript supplied by the prosecution – especially in a case where the translation is so important. A corrected transcript containing so many discrepancies should have set off alarm bells that should have served to ‘remind’ her about the stipulation. Even if she was bound by the stipulation, she could always have engaged her own translator to attack the prosecutor’s transcript and, through cross-examination of the cooperator, highlighted his role in preparing the prosecutor’s version – none of which would have violated her agreement.

As for the prosecutor, the ‘corrected’ transcript containing so many discrepancies from the first draft should also have set off alarm bells. Only an imprudent (or perhaps, inexperienced) prosecutor would threaten his adversary. The prosecutor needs to maintain his reputation as much as the defense attorney, and perhaps much more. While the defense attorney must always serve a client’s interests, a prosecutor need always maintain the trust of adversaries and should realize that no one case is worth jeopardizing one’s standing in the courthouse.


Laura A. Brevetti, a former state and federal prosecutor and high-profile criminal defense lawyer, soon to join Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Gates, offers this:

Defense attorneys sign these stipulations under compulsion in exchange for the help these transcripts provide in preparing the defense and in reliance on the prosecutor’s good faith. Good faith was absent here. The prosecutor conveniently avoided probing the quantitative and qualitative differences between the drafts and the one used at trial and sat there mute during [Mr.] Chan’s cross. The transcript, no longer just an aid, became the key evidence against the defendant. Since the prosecutor failed to come forward, the defense had a duty to expose the witness and his work as tainted, biased, and inherently unreliable. Threats by prosecutors such as the one here are, thankfully rare, but not unheard of. They give a defense attorney sleepless nights, but ultimately should not deter her from pursuing what is right for the client. If the prosecutor persists, perhaps after trial, counsel should discuss it with colleagues as it would be helpful to alert the attention of the defense bar as a whole.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]